@OccupiedTimes Yes! democracy should be by consensus decision, else it’s not democratic.

Why should it take 500 words to say “Yes”?

I could witter on (twitter on) about Demos being Greek for the people, implying that a Democracy should be rule by the people, of the people, for the people (as per the American Constitution) .

In truth there has never been a truly Democratic form of rule and even in The USA the signatories of the constitution weren’t Democrats. I believe George Washington had 500 slaves. Western Democracies have always been Oligarchies, ruled by political parties..

In the UK the politicians have the cheek to deny true Democracy by claiming to be a Parliamentary Democracy, even though it’s not even that.

True! every so often M.P.’s are allowed to get up and pour out rhetoric on unimportant issues, so long as the ensuing vote doesn’t conflict with the agenda set by the ruling Cabal, within the Inner Cabinet. That agenda only being allowed, providing it falls within the remit set by the 1% at the G8 summits (G20 summits are mere decoration for a G8 summit).

Even if the Parliament passes a vote in favour of an issue contrary to the wishes of the 1%, debating time will usually see that it doesn’t get to a final vote before the end of a Parliament.

The ruling classes, being made up of people, who have all attended the “right” schools, have grown up in a milieu of people with their own consensus, entirely divorced from that of the general electorate.

Even those from humble backgrounds are sifted through by a nomination process at so-called grassroots level, to ensure that they are “the right sort of people”.

Consider: If there was a referendum on Capital punishment, Tomorrow, for serial killers, particularly paedophile killers, what would be the expected outcome?

90% of the people would vote to hang (or, at least, terminate the life) of such vile wretches.

A Parliamentary vote would be so detached from populist views that the vote would be a resounding rejection of this principle.

Even the people, assessing these essays, would number a high proportion, who would consider capital punishment barbaric and uncivilised. This would in itself indicate that such people are not true Democrats.

In a true Democracy, the majority vote wins, no matter what.

In a Democracy, where some are excluded, Democracy immediately becomes rule by those setting the criteria for eligibility to vote.

The objection is always that, by definition, 50% of the population are below average intelligence and can’t be trusted to form an reasoned decision.

This is true and we could possibly have the same people voting to cut taxes to zero, whilst buying everyone a new house and building a stairway to Paradise

This however is no justification for denying the entire population a right to have a say in their own future.

It’s up to the Intelligentsia to “explain” the consequences of each vote that they object to and, yet, be prepared to live with the consequences, if they are unsuccessful in their arguments, and to, then, implement the vote to the best of their ability: or step aside for someone prepared to tackle the task.